Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between Philosophy and Theology in Inter-War German Catholic Scholarship
Next Article in Special Issue
Minjung Theology of Korea and Ecological Thinking: Focusing on the Theological Imagination of Ahn Byung-Mu
Previous Article in Journal
Thoughtlessness as an Intellectual Vice in Kierkegaard and Aristotle
Previous Article in Special Issue
Energy-Saving Triangle: Internalizing Islamic Ethical Values on Energy Saving in Integrative Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/rel14111402
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship: A Case Study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI)

by
Kwang Suk Yoo
1 and
Hyun Woo Kim
2,*
1
Institute for Religion and Civic Culture, Kyung Hee University, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Sociology, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju-si 28644, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2023, 14(11), 1402; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111402
Submission received: 4 October 2023 / Revised: 28 October 2023 / Accepted: 7 November 2023 / Published: 9 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Religion and Ecological Citizenship in the Asian Context)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper tries to examine how ecological aspects of religiosity are associated with the ecological citizenship necessary for coping with a global ecological crisis. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the notion of ecological citizenship has been paid serious attention to by numerous scholars from different research fields. Here, we measure how religiosity can work on the sustainability of ecological citizenship, focusing on Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI) which has been actively engaged in the environmental–ecological movement since the 1980s. First, they show a distinct tendency to religiously reinterpret the COVID-19 pandemic, an understanding of the pandemic as an ecological issue, and worldly optimism that human efforts can prevent the current or upcoming ecological crisis. Second, KSGI members with a high level of ecological religiosity tend to support ecological citizenship, independent of secular ecologism such as ecological politicization or deep ecology. In conclusion, this study is the first empirical research exploring how people of faith belonging to a minority religious tradition such as KSGI develop their ecological religiosity into ecological citizenship, namely a faith-based ecological citizenship.

1. Introduction

This study analyzes how ecological aspects of religiosity are associated with the ecological citizenship necessary for confronting a global ecological crisis. As is the case elsewhere, in the Republic of Korea, the COVID-19 pandemic became an important turning point for individual citizens to realize the importance of ecological life and values. It is a striking change considering that, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of people tended to consider working for the advent of an ecological society as an agenda mainly for the government or “eco-elites” (Johnson 2023). This change is also followed by a recent awakening among those concerned with global ecology in which they no longer see the nation-state as an effective institution in coping with transnational crises such as global pandemics or climate change. In this context, researchers and policymakers in the Republic of Korea have begun to pay more serious attention to the concept of ecological citizenship, introduced in Andrew Dobson’s book (Dobson 2003), Citizenship and the Environment (K.-H. Lee 2022; S.-I. Park 2021; C. Kim 2013; S. Park 2010).
However, given that the existing literature on ecological citizenship has not considered the importance and potential of faith-based ecological citizenship, this paper examines survey data on ecological religiosity to uncover the relationship between ecological religiosity and ecological citizenship. Defining faith-based ecological citizenship as religiously cultivated ecological attitudes and behaviors, this survey is designed to understand and measure ecological citizenship in a different way from secular ecologists who have tended to place more responsibility for environmental destruction on Christianity (White 1967). This research conducts a case study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI), which has been actively engaged in the environmental–ecological movement since the 1980s. The main findings follow: First, the ecological religiosity of KSGI members exhibits three distinct dimensions: religious reinterpretation of the COVID-19 pandemic, understanding of the pandemic as an ecological issue, and decline of the optimistic belief that human efforts can prevent the current or upcoming ecological crisis. Second, KSGI members with a high level of ecological religiosity tend to support ecological citizenship, independent of secular ecologism such as ecological politicization or deep ecology. In short, this paper examines the possibility of connecting ecological religiosity with ecological citizenship and additionally suggests that more attention should be paid to a new encounter of religiosity and secularity in the decision-making process of ecological policy in the Republic of Korea.

2. Previous Studies

The existing literature claims that Soka Gakkai International (SGI) has rapidly grown in the West by providing an alternative way to pursue secular happiness religiously in the post-industrial era (Hammond and Machacek 1999; Wilson and Dobbelaere 1994). With respect to how the SGI became attractive in many Anglo–Saxon societies, they paid special attention to characteristics of membership and organization such as its teachings on moral freedom and personal happiness and religious meetings in a pressure-free atmosphere (Wilson and Dobbelaere 1994, pp. 53–61). Unique organizational features of the SGI, such as the laypersons’ meetings without professional monks or nuns, were pointed out as an important factor of SGI’s success because such equality among members is preferred by those who do not want to be under religious authorities. A recent study on Italian SGI also shows clearly how its members were capable of “turning poison into medicine” through their efficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Introvigne 2023). In short, the prior studies mostly contributed to a deeper and more diverse understanding of SGI as a secularized Japanese Buddhist sect that has a different theology and organization from the Zen Buddhism well known in Western societies.
KSGI has likewise been one of the most rapidly growing religious organizations in the South Korean religious market over the last several decades—the Republic of Korea now has the second-largest SGI membership in the world. There is, however, little research on how KSGI members cultivate their ecological identities from both religious internalization and socialization. As a matter of fact, independent of the numerical growth, KSGI has earned a reputation for active environmental–ecological engagements, achieved independently or in collaboration with the government, since the 1980s on the basis of Daisaku Ikeda’s Buddhist thoughts of life (J. M. Kim 2020, p. 108). This is actually the earliest faith-based environmental movement in the Republic of Korea, given that mainstream Buddhists like the Jungto Society (淨土會) or Eco-Buddha program launched a full-fledged environmental–ecological movement no earlier than the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Yu 2020). While industrialized civil society, overwhelmed by enlightenment rationality, presupposes the legal and institutional separation of religion and state, the transnational ecological crisis views the controversy over the organic relationship of all life on earth beyond such separation. From this point of view, SGI teachings based on practical internationalism, optimistic worldliness, and universal pacifism (Yoo 2022a, pp. 189–91) have a high affinity with ecological citizenship as civic education and practices that assume the holistic and interactive relationship inherent in the global ecosystem. In this sense, it is theoretically worth intensively examining the relationship between ecological religiosity and ecological citizenship among KSGI members.
To fill in this research gap, this paper aims to show that KSGI members’ ecological religiosity can be transformed into ecological citizenship, eventually faith-based ecological citizenship, and how ecological religiosity is substantially different from the common religiosity practiced in everyday life. In particular, this paper provides an alternative explanation for the affinity between ecological religiosity and ecological citizenship in the process of ecological transformation by measuring and analyzing ecological attitudes and behaviors among KSGI members.

3. From Ecological Religiosity to Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship

3.1. Ecological Religiosity

Although it is a critical concept for interdisciplinary studies of religion and ecology, there is no univocal definition of ecological religiosity. It is also difficult to measure by the frequency of prayer, scripture reading, or participation in religious service and activities that are employed for measuring religiosity in the scientific study of religions in general. Ecological religiosity as a religious mind entails a die-hard and self-disciplinary attitude and behavior because it can be gradually cultured in proportion to the level of religious commitment, which scholars of religion have measured by such factors as the frequency of religious volunteering, participation in religious education and meetings, and religious offerings. Essentially, ecological religiosity encourages believers to engage in ecological practices in daily life and hold a doctrinal belief in ecological salvation and responsibility, which regards ecological destruction (or even disinterestedness) as a serious sin, as shown remarkably in Pope Francis’ encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ and the process theology of Protestantism (Cobb 2001). Although each religion speaks with a different voice in its ecological indoctrination and activism (Nche 2022, p. 133), every religion has its own teachings, instructions, or interpretations to guide its members’ ecological attitudes and behaviors. In this sense, ecological religiosity will be cultured individually or collectively by the religious community in proportion to the extent of religious commitment.
This does not mean, however, that religiosity is automatically transformed into ecological citizenship over time without any social conditions. The development of ecological attitudes and behaviors among people of faith is not a static and linear process. It is rather a culturally dynamic process, reflecting various socio-political contexts filled with previously unknown epistemological crises. Thus, it is necessary to examine how precipitating events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change engender ecological religiosity.

3.2. Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship

Ecological citizenship, or what Dobson (2003, p. 83) called post-cosmopolitan citizenship, is a new kind of citizenship that urges reform of the structural factors of society that cause the environmental and ecological crisis. It emphasizes the roles of critical citizens to ecologically reconstruct both human–nature relationships and society–nature relationships from a holistic perspective. According to the concept of ecological citizenship, citizens have a non-territorial duty and responsibility to resist ecological injustice. This diverges from the conventional territorial model of citizenship, which seeks to broaden citizenship’s scope by incorporating environmental considerations while upholding the territorial sovereignty of nation-states (Dobson 2003, p. 9; Sáiz 2005, p. 173). A faith that sees interconnectedness between human society and nature forces citizens to take moral responsibility for nature as well as for nation-states to cope with environmental–ecological challenges such as climate change, deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Thus, granting nature such ontological status drives citizens to engage in issues such as ecological welfare, ecological democracy, and ecological economic systems. In short, ecological citizens are bound to take moral responsibility for adopting sustainable lifestyles, promoting conservation efforts, supporting renewable energy sources, reducing waste, and struggling for ecological justice at local, national, and global levels.
Above all, ecological citizenship is not a simple aggregate of self-interested citizens vulnerable to ecological free-riding. Rather, it is a political community without a polity (Dobson 2006, p. 447) that can be sustained only when its constituents internalize the organic and holistic relationships among all things (N.-M. Lee 2016; Connelly 2013, p. 49). Then, justice is regarded as a primary virtue for ecological citizenship, and care and compassion as ‘secondary’ virtues (Dobson 2003, p. 21; Sáiz 2005, p. 174). It seems evident that these ecological civic virtues, primary or secondary, are very different from those necessary for secular and liberal citizenship that value individual freedom and equality more than any other value.
However, proponents of ecological citizenship like Andrew Dobson did not explain clearly where such ecological civic virtues come from (Scoville 2016, p. 831). Considering that secular socio-political ideology, such as ecologism or eco-anarchism, is too restrictive to comprehend a variety of ecological values and traditions across different societies (Gabrielson 2008, p. 441), it is essential to explore diverse religious–cultural foundations of civic virtues like ecological justice, care, and compassion. Faith-based ecological citizenship puts a greater focus on deeper changes in attitudes in favor of environmentalism driven by spiritual motivations than on shallow changes in behaviors produced primarily by financial incentives (Dobson 2007). In this sense, the matter of faith can be complimentary, if not entirely alternative, and significant enough to make religious or non-religious citizens and bureaucrats overcome the limitation and narrowness of secular citizenship (Latta 2014, p. 337). There are also quite a few research results on the close relationship between religion and ecology in the modern context (Tucker and Grim 2001).

4. Methods

4.1. Data and Variables

Between 27 December 2022 and 25 February 2023, the Institute for Religion and Civic Culture at Kyung Hee University designed and implemented a social survey of people 19 years old or older who belonged to one of the following religions—Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Won Buddhism, Cheondokyo, Daesoon Jinrihoe, and KSGI. The primary purpose of this survey was to investigate how Koreans perceive the ecological–environmental crisis differently according to their religious traditions. As reported widely (Yoo 2021, pp. 249–50), it is highly challenging to survey religious minority populations. Three major religions—Protestantism, Catholicism, and Buddhism—were sampled proportionately by region, gender, and age. Meanwhile, data for four minor religions—Won Buddhism, Cheondokyo, Daesoon Jjinlihoe, and KSGI—were collected through convenience sampling, mostly administered by local leaders in individual congregations. We aimed for and surveyed 150 respondents for each religious tradition. For this study, we analyzed the subsample of KSGI members.
Dependent Variables. The three dependent variables in this study represent different aspects of ecological citizenship. Given that there is no empirical research examining how faith-based ecological citizenship is constructed, we attempted to explore the conceptual elements of faith-based ecological citizenship empirically. As shown in Table 1, we conducted a principal component analysis with ten items and identified three corresponding latent factors of ecological citizenship: (1) ecological acts of faith, (2) ecological attitudes, and (3) ecological behaviors.
Independent Variables. We measured ecological religiosity with nine items and identified three dimensions empirically. More specifically, we assumed that COVID-19 played the role of the precipitating event that (re)shaped religious beliefs and practices among KSGI members. The present study delineated three dimensions as follows: (1) COVID-19 as a religious experience, (2) COVID-19 as an ecological issue, and (3) COVID-19 as an ominous event. The first dimension gauged the extent to which respondents considered COVID-19 as an opportunity for reshaping their religious life. The second dimension examined the degree to which respondents used COVID-19 as an opportunity to understand how urgent ecological-environmental issues are. The last dimension measured how much respondents succumbed to hopeless fatalism after COVID-19.
The statistical model also contains several control variables such as gender (1 if female; 0 otherwise), age (as a continuous variable), and educational attainment (as a categorical variable). We also incorporated conventional religiosity measures, including self-evaluated strength of religious belief (1 if very strong; 0 otherwise), and frequency of prayer (1 if daily; 0 otherwise) to identify the enduring impact of ecological religiosity while controlling for conventional religiosity measures. In the case of self-evaluated strength of religious belief, respondents overwhelmingly selected the value 5 (very strong) in comparison to other options. Consequently, we reclassified the self-evaluated strength of religious belief into a dummy variable, with 1 signifying “very strong” religious belief and 0 representing other responses. In addition to ecological religiosity, we included a variable that measures the strength of nature-and-life ethics. A principal component analysis showed that the following four items were grouped into a single latent factor (eigenvalue = 1.53, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.41): (1) “Even genetic research for human needs (food, cures for incurable diseases, etc.) requires some limits”, (2) “Some limits are necessary on exploiting and conquering nature for human needs”, (3) “In all cases, the values of living life must be respected”, and (4) “All animals and plants, including humans, are of equal value”.
Table 1 summarizes the description of latent factors (and corresponding variables) used in the statistical analysis. All the variables were measured with Likert 5-point scales.

4.2. Statistical Model

Given that the dependent variables are continuous ones, the present study used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to estimate the coefficients and standard errors of independent variables. This study particularly reported robust standard errors to address the clustered characteristics of the snowball sampling that was used to collect the survey data.
We chose three dependent variables: (1) ecological acts of faith, (2) ecological attitudes, and (3) ecological behaviors—each variable indicates a distinct aspect of faith-based ecological citizenship. For the convenience of model comparison, the same set of control variables and ecological religiosity variables were introduced across the models.

5. Results

Table 2 presents the OLS estimates of four variables consisting of ecological citizenship (from Model 1 to Model 3) regressed on ecological religiosity in addition to control variables. Robust standard errors are reported in the parentheses to address the issue of clustered data within KSGI.
As shown from Model 1 to Model 3 in Table 2, we found that strength of belief and frequency of prayer are not statistically significant predictors of ecological citizenship. Strong nature-and-life ethics, measured with non-religious phrases, are found to be positively associated with ecological acts of faith and ecological behavior, but not with ecological attitudes.
The analyses support the hypothesis that ecological religiosity is a meaningful predictor of ecological citizenship. We found, more specifically, that KSGI members who see COVID-19 as a religious experience and a rare opportunity to grow in their commitment to religious practices, beliefs, and communities are more likely to have stronger ecological attitudes and behavior patterns. It is worth noting that KSGI members who reconsider the unprecedented relationship between the COVID-19 outbreak and ecological crises tend to have greater scores in all three aspects of ecological citizenship. Finally, as we expected, KSGI members who think that COVID-19 is a fatal warning to human civilizations and of government incapacity tend to have lower ecological attitudes and avoid ecological behaviors.
In general, the results of the statistical analyses are consistent with our hypotheses. As our hypotheses expected, ecological religiosity has a complex relationship with ecological citizenship. How KSGI members (re)interpret the COVID-19 pandemic affects their ecological acts of faith, ecological attitudes, and ecological behaviors somewhat differently. More specifically, if the COVID-19 pandemic leads some KSGI members to rediscover the value of religion and/or ecology in their lives, these members tend to adopt various attitudes and behaviors that are necessary for ecological citizenship, as Fisker-Nielsen found a possibility of good governance from SGI members’ responses in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fisker-Nielsen 2020, p. 45). Meanwhile, other KSGI members who fell into psychological helplessness during the pandemic became more skeptical of ecological attitudes and ecological behaviors. This ambivalent tendency, even if it is not important enough to deny the hypothesis, needs more intensive research and explanation in that SGI teachings are consistently based on the belief that an ideal Buddhist society will be constructed in this world.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we considered how ecological religiosity develops faith-based ecological citizenship among KSGI members, utilizing a unique social survey data set covering major to minority religious traditions. Our findings suggest a complex relationship between ecological religiosity and ecological citizenship. Ecological religiosity is not a natural consequence of every life of faith, but a social construct that is (re)shaped by an inner understanding of external precipitating environmental events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecological religiosity also has many faces. Some people put greater emphasis on religious experiences resulting from their understanding of the pandemic, whereas others reconfirm that ecology matters from the same external event. Although their numbers are small, there is also a third group of those who fall into psychological helplessness.
Our analyses imply that when KSGI members (re)interpret the pandemic as an ecological issue or extract religious meanings from the pandemic, they become strong supporters of ecological citizenship, even though some of them show weak confidence in the validity of faith-based ecological citizenship. We also found that the common measures of religiosity (such as strength of belief or frequency of prayer) are not statistically significant predictors of ecological citizenship, implying that ecological religiosity substantially differs from everyday religiosity.
Finally, this paper suggests that religious governance can play a crucial role in transforming ecological religiosity into faith-based ecological citizenship when people of faith face an environmental crisis. The recent COVID-19 pandemic caused serious social conflict and confusion in Korea surrounding governmental mandates that restricted religious freedom, especially participation in religious services and meetings, as shown clearly in the socio-political conflict between the Korean government and megachurches (Yoo 2022b, p. 3). Religious citizens in Korea are known to have a higher level of confidence in the government than non-religious citizens (Mishler and Rose 2001; S. Lee 2010). Such confidence would encourage people of faith to participate in the governance process of ecological issues in collaboration with nonprofit organizations and local bureaucracy. More careful investigation into religious governance that helps transform ecological religiosity into faith-based ecological citizenship is necessary in future research.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first social science research exploring how people of faith belonging to a minority religious tradition such as KSGI develop their ecological religiosity into ecological citizenship. However, our study has a potential methodological problem as we rely on a convenience sample of 150 KSGI members for our statistical analyses. Our descriptive statistics (Table 1) should not be interpreted as a nationally representative statistical profile of KSGI members. If the probability of being included in the sample is associated with the dependent variables as well as a specific set of independent variables at the same time, the estimates could be biased. Future research can overcome such limitations by adopting a more thorough questionnaire item development, survey design, and data collection procedure.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S.Y. and H.W.K.; formal analysis, H.W.K.; investigation, K.S.Y.; resources, K.S.Y.; data curation, K.S.Y. and H.W.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.S.Y. and H.W.K.; writing—review and editing, K.S.Y. and H.W.K.; funding acquisition, K.S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2021S1A5C2A02088321].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that the survey cited in this paper followed all regulations related to research ethics in Korea as well as the pre-authorization of Korea Soka Gakkai International.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study online.

Data Availability Statement

The research data is currently not available. Please check https://ircc.khu.ac.kr (accessed on 14 January 2023) when it is released.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cobb, John B., Jr. 2001. Protestant Theology and Deep Ecology. In Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground. Edited by David Landis Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb. Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 213–28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Connelly, James. 2013. The Virtues of Environmental Citizenship. In Environmental Citizenship. Edited by Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 49–73. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dobson, Andrew. 2003. Citizenship and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dobson, Andrew. 2006. Ecological citizenship: A Defence. Environmental Politics 15: 447–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dobson, Andrew. 2007. Environmental Citizenship: Towards Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development 15: 276–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fisker-Nielsen, Anne Mette. 2020. The Response of Soka Gakkai to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Personhood, Interiority, and a Civil Society in Crisis Mode. The Journal of CESNUR 4: 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gabrielson, Teena. 2008. Green Citizenship: A Review and Critique. Citizenship Studies 12: 429–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hammond, Phillip E., and David W. Machacek. 1999. Soka Gakkai in America: Accommodation and Conversion. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Introvigne, Massimo. 2023. “Turning the Poison into Medicine”: Soka Gakkai in Italy and COVID-19. The Journal of CESNUR 7: 66–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Johnson, Christie. 2023. Environmental Elitism: In-Depth Review of a Global Problem. Unsustainable. Available online: https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/environmental-elitism-sustainability/ (accessed on 14 January 2023).
  11. Kim, Chankook. 2013. Ecological Citizenship and Climate Change Education. Environmental Philosophy 16: 35–60. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kim, Jong Man. 2020. A Preliminary Study on Religious Ecology—Focusing on Ikeda Daisaku’s Ecological Perception. Journal of the Korean Academy of New Religions 42: 85–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Latta, Alex. 2014. Matter, politics and the sacred: Insurgent ecologies of citizenship. Cultural Geographies 21: 323–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, Kyung-Han, ed. 2022. Saengtaejeonhwansidae Saengtaesiminseong Gyoyuk (Education of Ecological Citizenship in the Era of Ecological Transition). Seoul: Pureunsol. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, Na-Mi. 2016. Social Crisis due to Climate Change and Communities’ Reaction. Journal of Humanities 60: 5–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, SeungJong. 2010. The Effect of Religion on Trust in Government. Korean Public Administration Review 44: 99–119. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mishler, William, and Richard Rose. 2001. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in Post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34: 30–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nche, George C. 2022. The Dissenting Voices Perception of Climate Change and the Church’s Responsibility in Nigeria. In Religious Environmental Activism: Emerging Conflict and Tensions in Earth Stewardship. Edited by Jens Koehrsen, Julia Blanc and Fabian Huber. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 132–54. [Google Scholar]
  19. Park, Seong-In. 2021. Global Citizenship Education in the Era of the Anthropocene Crisis. Global Studies Education 13: 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Park, Soonyawl. 2010. Korean implication and debate on Ecological Citizenship. ECO 14: 167–94. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sáiz, Angel Valencia. 2005. Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and Ecological Citizenship. Environmental Politics 14: 163–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scoville, Caleb. 2016. George Orwell and ecological citizenship: Moral agency and modern estrangement. Citizenship Studies 20: 830–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and John A. Grim. 2001. Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology. Daedalus 130: 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  24. White, Lynn. 1967. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. Science 155: 1203–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wilson, Bryan, and Karel Dobbelaere. 1994. A Time to Chant: The Soka Gakkai Buddhists in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yoo, Kwangsuk. 2021. A Study of Reflective Consideration and Improvements on the Question of Religion in the Population Census of Korea. Theology and Society 35: 235–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yoo, Kwangsuk. 2022a. A Comparative Study on Pacifism of KSGI and SGI in the Context of Religious Typology. Journal of the Korean Academy of New Religions 46: 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yoo, Kwangsuk. 2022b. Evolution of Korean Megachurch Christianity Intensified by the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Socio-Political Context. Religions 13: 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yu, Jung-gil. 2020. History and Future of Korean Buddhist Environmental Movement. The Buddhist Review. June 20. Available online: https://www.budreview.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2225 (accessed on 30 September 2023).
Table 1. Variable descriptions.
Table 1. Variable descriptions.
Latent FactorItemsStrongly
Disagree		Somewhat
Disagree		NeutralSomewhat
Agree		Strongly
Agree
I. Ecological citizenship
Ecological
acts of faith
(eig = 1.19; α = 0.74)		Living by ecological ethics is a natural obligation for people of faith.0 (0%)0 (0%)12 (8%)61 (40.7%)77 (51.3%)
People of faith should engage in various forms of environmental aid and sponsorship to help stop the destruction of ecosystems in underdeveloped countries.0 (0%)2 (1.3%)20 (13.3%)81 (54%)47 (31.3%)
People of faith should feel guilty if they turn a blind eye to environmental or ecological destruction.1 (0.7%)12 (8%)37 (24.7%)49 (32.7%)51 (34%)
Ecological
attitudes
(eig = 3.68; α = 0.69)		In line with global environmental regulations, South Korea should impose an environmental tax on all manufactured goods from now on.0 (0%)12 (8%)46 (30.7%)63 (42%)29 (19.3%)
I am willing to use public transportation more than driving my car to help overcome the ecological crisis.2 (1.3%)16 (10.7%)43 (28.7%)58 (38.7%)31 (20.7%)
I think the use of all disposable items should be banned.6 (4%)37 (24.7%)40 (26.7%)55 (36.7%)12 (8%)
I am willing to eat a vegetarian diet to help solve the ecological crisis.11 (7.3%)37 (24.7%)41 (27.3%)47 (31.3%)14 (9.3%)
Ecological
behaviors
(eig = 1.24; α = 0.74)		I prioritize purchasing products with an eco-label or recycling label.0 (0%)6 (4%)42 (28%)63 (42%)39 (26%)
I take a shopping bag with me when I go to the grocery store or market.1 (0.7%)5 (3.3%)14 (9.3%)58 (38.7%)72 (48%)
I wash and separate garbage such as paper, plastic, bottles, and cans.1 (0.7%)9 (6%)12 (8%)61 (40.7%)67 (44.7%)
II. Ecological religiosity
COVID-19 as
a religious experience
(eig = 3.54; α = 0.80)		Despite the rapid development of modern medicine, the place people will ultimately turn to is their religious faith in the COVID-19 pandemic.8 (5.3%)27 (18%)43 (28.7%)52 (34.7%)20 (13.3%)
Religion has made me think more deeply about the value and dignity of life.0 (0%)3 (2%)18 (12%)63 (42%)66 (44%)
I realized the importance of religious community once again.0 (0%)2 (1.3%)24 (16%)63 (42%)61 (40.7%)
I pray more often than before.1 (0.7%)13 (8.7%)29 (19.3%)69 (46%)38 (25.3%)
COVID-19 as
an ecological issue
(eig = 1.66; α = 0.80)		The COVID-19 pandemic is a clear manifestation of the climate crisis.6 (4%)16 (10.7%)35 (23.3%)50 (33.3%)43 (28.7%)
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected my view of the environment and ecological issues.1 (0.7%)6 (4%)20 (13.3%)76 (50.7%)47 (31.3%)
After the COVID-19 pandemic, I strive harder to take environmentally friendly actions.0 (0%)6 (4%)33 (22%)71 (47.3%)40 (26.7%)
COVID-19 as an ominous event
(eig = 1.10; α = 0.35)		The COVID-19 pandemic is a warning of the end of human civilization.38 (25.3%)32 (21.3%)34 (22.7%)33 (22%)13 (8.7%)
The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly shown the incapacity of the government.14 (9.3%)45 (30%)58 (38.7%)26 (17.3%)7 (4.7%)
Table 2. OLS estimates of selected covariates on ecological citizenship.
Table 2. OLS estimates of selected covariates on ecological citizenship.
Model 1
(Eco. Acts of Faith)		Model 2
(Ecological Attitudes)		Model 3
(Ecological Behaviors)
Control variables
 Female−0.0540.006−0.320 *
(0.151)(0.146)(0.131)
 Age0.019 **−0.0030.006
(0.007)(0.007)(0.006)
 Education0.0040.103−0.107
(0.085)(0.107)(0.083)
 Belief−0.254−0.049−0.057
(0.136)(0.161)(0.144)
 Prayer−0.0960.048−0.033
(0.269)(0.329)(0.247)
 Life ethics0.230 **0.0850.196 **
(0.079)(0.082)(0.074)
Ecological religiosity
 COVID-19 as religious experience0.1390.307 **0.350 ***
(0.081)(0.107)(0.084)
 COVID-19 as ecological issue0.281 **0.290 **0.256 **
(0.088)(0.095)(0.096)
 COVID-19 as an ominous event<−0.001−0.209 **−0.152 *
(0.089)(0.072)(0.073)
Constant−0.599−0.1690.214
(0.531)(0.479)(0.433)
Number of observations150
Coefficient of determination0.3570.2550.409
Root MSE0.8270.8900.793
F12.5015.74212.770
Robust standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yoo, K.S.; Kim, H.W. Understanding Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship: A Case Study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI). Religions 2023, 14, 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111402

AMA Style

Yoo KS, Kim HW. Understanding Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship: A Case Study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI). Religions. 2023; 14(11):1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111402

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yoo, Kwang Suk, and Hyun Woo Kim. 2023. "Understanding Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship: A Case Study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI)" Religions 14, no. 11: 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111402

APA Style

Yoo, K. S., & Kim, H. W. (2023). Understanding Faith-Based Ecological Citizenship: A Case Study of Korea Soka Gakkai International (KSGI). Religions, 14(11), 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14111402

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop